Few things are more
abundantly attested in Islamic law than the permissibility of child
marriage. Islamic tradition records that Muhammad’s favorite wife,
Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the
marriage:

“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while
she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she
was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till
his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).

Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We
went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj.
Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and
my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some
of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what
she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at
the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing
became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with
it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some
Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good
luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the
marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and
my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine
years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).

Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.

Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but
because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an
33:21), he is considered exemplary in this unto today. And so in April
2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying
to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting
Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging
the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam… [putting] the moral character
of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat:
“Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler
will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to
women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice
their lives for any law restricting child marriage.

Likewise the influential website Islamonline.com in December 2010
justified child marriage by invoking not only Muhammad’s example, but
the Qur’an as well:

The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e.
for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet
menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among
your women—if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also
for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not
negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to
have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like
the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of
things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet
entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old,
however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old,
according to al-Bukhari.

Other countries make Muhammad’s example the basis of their laws
regarding the legal marriageable age for girls. Article 1041 of the
Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be
engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before
puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage
contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian
is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”

Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he
was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a
divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters
away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see
their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he
lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with
Muhammad’s example.

"Afghan parliament upholds right to marry children," by Cheryl K. Chumley for The Washington Times, June 10 (thanks to Krazy Kafir):

Afghanistan's parliament has rejected a measure that would have barred men from marrying girls younger than 16, saying the proposal ran counter to Islamic ideology.

The measure also would have banned “baad, [the] traditional practice
of buying or selling women to settle disputes,” and outlawed criminal
charges being imposed on rape victims, Breitbart reported. Rape victims
in Afghanistan often are charged with fornication or adultery.

President Hamid Karzai reportedly supported the measures, but opponents said they “violate[d] Islamic principles,” Breitbart reported.

The failure of parliament to act in accordance with Mr. Karzai
highlights a deep rift among the nation’s politicians. And it comes at a
time when elections are set for April 2014 for a new president.

There is “a rift between conservative and more secular members of the community,” Sky News reported.

State Department Behaving Undiplomatically

As
if President Barack Obama didn't have any embarrassing issues to deal
with, now come the reports -- not proof -- of some really ugly
allegations. The original CBS reporting contained a memo from the
Diplomatic Security Service alleging wrongdoing and possible
interference in at least eight investigations.

According CBS among the allegations included:

-- A U.S. Ambassador having "routinely ditched" his security detail to meet up with prostitutes in a public park.
-- Members of Hillary Clinton's security detail procuring prostitutes
while overseas -- activity, the report claimed, that was "endemic"
-- A State Department security official in Beirut "engaged in sexual assaults" on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards.
-- An "underground drug ring" operating near the U.S. Embassy in
Baghdad supplied State Department security contractors with drugs.

CBS describes the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) as:

"the State Department's security force, charged with protecting the
secretary of state and U.S. ambassadors overseas and with investigating
any cases of misconduct on the part of the 70,000 State Department
employees worldwide."

The claim is that these and other investigations were halted at the
behest of State Department officials at the highest levels -- but no
claim of interference by Hillary Clinton has yet been lodged.

The highest named official is Patrick Kennedy, Undersecretary of State for Management.

Ambassador Kennedy and I briefly crossed paths in Baghdad 10 years
ago. I doubt that he would remember me, but I do remember him.

He was Ambassador Paul Bremer's chief of staff and was easily
accessible to anyone who needed a decision at his level; he would listen
to my screwball ideas and say "yes," "no," or something like "flesh
this out and bring it back."

I find it very, very difficult to believe that someone with Amb.
Kennedy's 40-year history of service would take it upon himself to
interfere with official investigations.

Cabinet-level departments are generally organized the same way. At
State there is a secretary, two deputy secretaries, five
undersecretaries, many assistant secretaries, and dozens of deputy
assistant secretaries.

Assistant Secretary is the lowest level requiring Senate confirmation, but many can be directly appointed.

The point is that an undersecretary in any department is a very, very senior person.

If these reports are true, and these orders went as high as Patrick
Kennedy, then I certainly don't believe they went as high as Hillary
Clinton. But the fact is that all of these misdeeds happened on her
watch and she probably needs to explain how all this could be going on
and who (or how) these investigations got short-stopped.

She may have to do that under oath before a congressional committee
and, knowing that her histrionics over the Benghazi questioning were
more stagecraft than statecraft, this time she may not have as much
political cover from Democrats as she had before.

The best news for the State Department: there is so much else going
on that this story isn't getting the immediate attention it deserves. I
can't even remember all the scandals buzzing around the Oval Office like
mosquitoes hatching after a summer rainstorm in Washington, DC.

For its part, the State Department has decided to hire trained
outside investigators (through the Office of the Inspector General) to
look into all this, but it is unlikely that will satisfy Hill
Republicans.

This is not the same thing as hiring a special counsel - a real
outside investigator - to look into the charges of not just wrongdoing,
but officially covering up that wrongdoing.

Obama Demonstrates the Evil of Big Government

The
scandals surrounding the Obama administration come down to one common
theme -- that the ever-growing size and scope of our federal government
gives it enormous power over virtually every aspect of our lives, power
that in the wrong hands can be used to reward supporters, exact revenge
and punish enemies. In education, health care, transportation, energy,
disaster relief, welfare, commerce, work and salary rules, and on and
on, the federal government plays an outsized role completely
inconsistent with the Founding Fathers' notion of a limited government
that allows maximum personal liberty.

In 1900, government at all three levels -- federal, state and local
-- took about 10 percent of the people's money. It now takes nearly 50
percent.

On what basis should Americans -- especially those who did not vote
for Barack Obama -- feel that the President will guard their interests,
especially when apparently vindictive actions have been taken under his
watch?

The IRS admits to, and has apologized for, targeting conservative
groups. The second article of impeachment against Richard Nixon accused
him of using the IRS to go after political enemies.

Incredibly, the IRS
commissioner of the office in charge of tax-exempt organizations from
2009 to 2012 -- when the conservative groups were targeted -- is now the
director of the IRS Affordable Care Act office, responsible for
ObamaCare tax compliance.

The Justice Department, in apparent violation of policy, subpoenaed
the phone records of as many as 100 reporters without notifying their
employer, the Associated Press. And the DOJ subpoenaed the phone records
of a Fox reporter as well as the phone records of his parents.

Now every president fights with the media, whose job description
supposedly requires them to serve as watchdog over government. It is why
the First Amendment protects "freedom of the press." But how many
administrations have openly and repeatedly stated contempt for a
particular news channel, the way Obama and his aides have publicly
attacked the Fox News Channel?

Early in his administration, Obama complained, "I've got one
television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration." He
told Rolling Stone: "The golden age of an objective press was a pretty
narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like
[William Randolph] Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally
to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition -- it
is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of
view. It's a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view
that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a
country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the
world."

Fox News is "ultimately destructive?"

Then-White House senior adviser David Axelrod said that the Fox News
Channel was "not really a news station" and that much of the programming
is "not really news." Similarly, former White House Communications
Director Anita Dunn said about Fox: "We don't need to pretend that this
is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."

A few days later, calling Fox "a wing of the Republican Party," Dunn
said: "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their
opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not
pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." Dunn also said, "I mean
the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the
research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," and
told Time Magazine: "It's opinion journalism masquerading as news. They
are boosting their audience, but that doesn't mean we are going to sit
back."

How despicable do Democrats find Republicans? A recent CNN poll found 76 percent of Democrats still
believe President Bush "deliberately misled" the country into the Iraq
War. And Obama defenders say Bush "used" the IRS to "target" the NAACP.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) even offered up this Bush/Hurricane Katrina
conspiracy: The president, according to Frank, dragged his feet during
Katrina so that black New Orleanians would leave the state and take
their Democratic votes with them. Frank called this alleged Bush scheme
"ethnic cleansing by inaction."

No. Let's agree that neither side trusts "the other side." Let's
agree that neither side thinks much of the goals and motives of their
political opponents. Let's agree that the bigger the government, the
more money and power it takes from its citizens. So where does this
leave us? It takes us back to a founding principle of this country:
limited government. By reducing the size of government, we limit the
amount of damage "the other side" can do when in charge.

It isn't that smaller government is more trustworthy or transparent.
Among other attributes, a smaller government allows the commander in
chief to focus on job one -- protecting the American people against
enemies. For both Obama-haters and Bush-haters, a smaller government
reduces the amount of influence and control the "wrong side" has over
the other -- a win-win.

Op-ed: Loyalty over competence...a hallmark of this administrationBy: Diane Sori

We all saw this coming as the need to silence the man directly involved in the Benghazi cover-up was bound to happen.

And so yesterday it was announced that CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell (a
33-year CIA veteran), will be resigning effective August 9th. Citing
that he wanted to spend more time with his family, Morell used this
standard excuse favored by all in the hot seat, and that just won’t fly
anymore.

“Whenever someone involved in the rough and tumble of Washington decides
to move on, there is speculation in various quarters about the ‘real
reason,’ Morell said in statement. ‘But when I say that it is time for
my family, nothing could be more real than that.’

Oh really…than how come (according to Reuters) Morell will now become a member of the presidential intelligence advisory board.

Hmmmm…I guess it’s the old adage of 'keep your friends close and your
enemies even closer' for with this announcement coming just days after
the newest and extremely serious Obama scandal…what I call ‘Big Brother
IS Indeed Watching You’…Morell’s ‘sudden’ resigning and moving into
Obama’s direct sight line raises major red flags.

And then to be replaced by White House lawyer and agency outsider Avril
D. Haines, who currently is Obama’s deputy counsel in charge of national
security issues and legal adviser to the National Security Council,
means that with the appointment of Susan Rice as National Security
Advisor, Obama now has two NOT qualified but oh so loyal people in charge of our
nation’s security…one to foolishly advise him, and one to keep an eye on
the CIA so they do Obama’s bidding instead of operating in the best
interest of our country.

And of course as if on cue, CIA Director and Obama shill John Brennen
follows in lock-step singing Haines’ praises saying, "she knows more
about covert action than anyone in the U.S. government outside of the
CIA."

Quite odd that a women…a lawyer who helped Brennen rewrite the rules of
the drone campaign that was recently announced by Obama, and someone who
has NEVER worked inside the intelligence agency, just happens to know
so much about classified CIA actions…knows more than some within the CIA
itself…and is now being appointed as Deputy Director of one of the
agencies under Congress’ microscope.

Brennen and Haines…both Obama blind followers and muslim sympathizers
running the CIA…are ‘We the People’ and our beloved America screwed or what…as the very people charged with protecting America's intelligence have really NO knowledge how to do so, because Obama doesn’t pick people who are competent...Obama
picks people for loyalty and for knowing even less than he does.

So by appointing Haines to a position of authority and moving
Morell to within Obama’s sight line, Obama’s peeps continue to circle their
protective wagons around him. And as an added bonus…a bonus Morell is
too blind to see..this administration now has their fall guy for Benghazi…someone who, unlike Susan Rice, will NOT be promoted to an
even higher position than before but one who will be kept on a leash as he sits on an advisory board under Obama’s watchful eye.

And here’s a little tidbit some might have forgotten…Michael Morell was directly involved in composing the infamous
talking points about the Benghazi attack…you know the talking points
that said the attack was because of a YouTube video…and Morell is
suspected to have been the person who removed all references to regional
threats and the words ‘terror attack’ from them.

Even more of a reason for Obama to keep him close by I’d say.

But true to liberal shortsightedness, Morell’s resigning now while the
NSA is in the spotlight actually deflects some of that spotlight off
spying for just a bit and puts it back on Benghazi just where Obama
doesn’t ever want to go…a scandal that should NEVER have been swept
under the rug…a scandal Obama thinks he’s free of…a scandal he thinks
can’t be traced back to him…a scandal with shadows of treason lurking
behind every corner...a scandal that will NOT go away.

EMAIL FOLLOWERS

Follow My Posts by Email

The Patriot Factor

I am an American Patriot...part of the grassroots movement of bloggers spreading the truth the media will not. I am also co-host with Craig Andresen of RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on RSP Radio at: https://streamingv2.shoutcast.com/right-side-patriots